Thanks so much for the input everyone.
We need an allied playbook.
-
-
ignore the units, look at the colors. I still have to run the numbers.
-
Sometimes its not about the ipcs but the opportunity. So, UK in the middle east is a modest +4 ipcs, but also allows them to block Germany from entering the very ipc rich middle east. Or allows them to compete with Japan over India which I care more about keeping Japan busy than the ipcs.
I’m not a fan of Russia invading Finland/Norway because I’m big on KGF and the U.S. spending 100% on the Atlantic with the goal of hitting Norway US4. Russia’s job is to keep together and try to delay Germany 1 extra round from Moscow. Also, getting the U.S. to norway may mean sacrificing a UK transport to take Normandy UK3. (US buys navy/transports 1+2, then bombers and transports or anything else they need on US3 so that on US5 they’re bombing Berlin)
Everything on the Pacific side is about just harassing or slowing down Japan’s take over of China/India as long as possible, then US4 I may begin purchasing units for the Pacific.
I am with you about Italy. I often use the US 2 or 3 to help make sure to quash any Italian expansion in Morroco/Algeria, etc
Once round 4 or 5 hits, sometimes I’ll use a UK transport to take Greece, trying to give Germany as many fronts as possible (US in Norway, sometimes also taking Normandy, then Greece and Russia). Hopefully mechanized Russia bought an extra turn of German delay, the US invasion force got Germany to buy non-Russian front gear, and UK in the middle east blocks those IPCs, while UK also supports the U.S. in Europe.
-
@Guam-Solo I opened with 92. I am going to try and do an Americans in the Med strategy. The income boost is better than going north. And you can keep the territories without the seesaw trading I’m experiencing in the north. I will try both 92 stack and Taranto.
-
-
still looking good economically. -
@crockett36 Ambitious! I would like to see how both Taranto and a sz 92 stack is orchestrated (because I’d like to use it!). I read your comment and began looking at the start up map on Trip. A to see how that could work. It seems like a “bridge too far” if you know what I mean…
-
@Guam-Solo Sorry G, I meant in succession. I would try a Med strategy employing 1st the sz92 stack and then the Taranto raid.
-
@crockett36 in successive games playing against the bots.
-
@crockett36 ahh…so not both in the same game ? I was wondering how that would work :)
Good action here Rock On
-
@crockett36 Well that makes more sense…but for a moment in my bewildered imagination you were the greatest tactical genius in the community to execute a Round 1 Taranto and finish with a SZ 92 stack. :relaxed:
-
That would be more like the miracle of Jehosophat, who put the singers in the front line and “who praised the beauty of holiness, instead of shouting out a battle cry.”
-
@crockett36 Lol - yes! So many Biblical references can be made. I was thinking more like the loaves and fishes: stretching your limited resources to feed the multitude of your hungry ambition.
-
@Argothair Hey, I was just wondering if you knew that I read your Russian strategy on Youtube under allied playbook game
-
@crockett36 Where is that link?
-
-
I’m having to adjust my strategic objectives. Previously it has been 1. Atlantic 2. London 3. Moscow 4. Egypt 5 Bombay. In that order. I’m considering switching to 1. Atlantic 2. Moscow 3. Egypt 4. Bombay 5. London. My reasoning is that if I have control over the Atlantic, London should be an easier rescue than Moscow because of the proximity.
Also, in my argumentum ad absurdum experimentation, I have tried abandoning Bombay. I’m playing a game right now with myself where I abandoned Hono and save Sidney and Bombay. I’m considering a game where I abandon Moscow. People say Moscow will fall to a Ger who knows what he’s doing. So why not try a game where you just don’t care. Instead you use the resources available to make significant gains. Just a thought. Worth a computer sim at least, if not a triplea game. I’ll call it my crazy ivan.
-
@crockett36 yeah, but you should not abandon moscow just because.
You should allways try to slow down Axis, so that your Allies are in Position to Strike down Axis or fortify key positions. -
just like to experiment. I won’t try that against you.
-
a non fortified Moscow has the advantage of giving the Jerries the impression it will be a piece of cake ergo they send less troops, other ventures seem promising, etc
remember, repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Suggested Topics
